Madison officials had inquired about this since domestic partner benefits are offered to city employees. As the article mentions, Lautenschlager's declaration is advisory, but courts often rely on such opinions to render decisions.

1 Comments:

States might begin to offer bills allowing gay marriage, but without the economic benefits of marriage to reach the real intent of the gay marriage issue.

It has been at least 200 years or more since marriage has been marketed as a "good financial deal" for taking a spouse, and has long been seen by woman - "the spouses taken" - as a bad deal for them.

Encouraging marriage rooted in anything but love and affection could be considered always a bad deal, rooted in economics and expoitive manipulation, not humanitarian values of loving partnerships.

Loving partnerships has never been denied gay partners, and could not possibly be affected by state legislation. The scope of the gay marriage debate has always been to secure the economic benefits of those recognized in marriage by offering gay marriage the same legitimacy.

Perhaps, this is the right conclusion for the wrong reason. To reach the right reason, removing the wrong reason seems fitting to reach right decisions by states. Endowed with economic incentives, gay marriage and its compatriot, gay unions, is just another method of playing the "system." As evidence, there are no 20-somethings who get married for economics.

And there lies the rub for states by allowing marriage to become a vehicle of financial manipulation rather than the investment in family formation.

Allowing gay marriage without them would expose the agenda that destroys the foundation of marriage, or by exposure, destroys the concept of marriage as exploitive, and an "institution" which should be destroyed.